tv Capital News Today CSPAN December 22, 2009 11:00pm-2:00am EST
>> i do not want to trump logic, but, if you excepted and i was in favor of what may declare an interest per crum i thought so you can understand where i am coming from, i thought you did not even need a 9/11. as a clear and present danger, there is a very strong un argument for confronting sadam hussain because he had not lived up to the commitments of 687 which is the cease-fire of the 1999 war. he had not, he threw out the as directors effectively at to that end of 1998 and we
know and we do still though this from the iraq survey group, he had the means and the will to concoct weapons of mass destruction at a later date even if he did not have them at the time. there was a british interest to confront him and we should have done it in 1999 and we could not because of the french and the russians would not allow the security council to do it. that is our was coming from. it would not damage the british interest if we had gone into iraq with your numbers. it would have hurt it if we actively opposed when americans were planning. and we could have done more on issues that somebody may have regarded as minor all the o if i said anything more that would be insane. >> i want to make sure i got
it right to. one more question is about the aftermath planning but for someone to check to any of my colleagues want to elaborate on any of these points? >> just coming up with a question if we have the option to walk away, what would have happened for instance? if not acted mess speech of the united nations without the help of the teleprompter and bringing back could be taken any further? >> that might have resulted it was not monet pushing at the u.n., spaniards, for the
likelihood of that ever happening was very slim but is a hypothesis worth considering progress bush decided to repudiate the un altogether instead of plow ahead with something like cosimo, i suspect that would have produced a crisis for us. it might not have gone through the house of commons. >> it was a critical moment that bush should agree to refer to the u.n. and the resolutions and the point* it it it between the meeting of september and bush's speech, when the nidal swung back and forth from one day to the next from one morning to one afternoon, you did
not know which draft of the speech would prevail all. >> when you would influence where the needle stopped, where you warding that without reference to the security council, the british in this enterprise would inevitably diminish? >> if we don't get to the u.n. in this speech did do not make a serious effort to go down the path, the first instance of a regime change will take place in the london. >> that would mean five minutes to continue for the policy. but perhaps if he could do that to. they did not go to be a non to descend on the british troops for supporting american's of vietnam's.
>> it was a bad point* in the uk/u.s. relations if anything else. president johnson fended some protocol there. but the the thing about the anglo-american relationship since 1945, is not characterized by its ability but the volatility and it is extraordinary up and down over that period. >> i am not trying to get into that. >> of love to go into it but i would like to go into the analogy of a policy of giving political support tata which in itself can carry a political prize. >> i a understand that but i cannot conceive -- concede
that prime minister player given what he said about sadam hussain in 1998 and where he was coming from, whatever done a harold wilson if i can put it like that. i think the sir roderick point* of love level of military support might have been an alternative, that i think is more to the point*. i cannot envision and post 9/11 that tony blair would ever in the way that harold wilson did with this to defeat himself and the white house. >> can you imagine him pursuing the military options of the united kingdom without reference to the united nations? >> he had a precedent in kosovo from which was a successful operation that
would not benefit from the security council revolution but have the formal support of the security council and subject to serve rodericks' abuse. of the russians. iraq was not like that. the short answer to your question is the might have been mission impossible to send 50,000 british troops to iraq without benefit. of course, in all broke down and in the end be did go to iraq the least was an effort >> but what is the perception of the u.s. say that to the u.s. participation would be inevitable? was it taken for granted?
>> we did reach a state, well, i was told where by a very regular contact, very senior in the state department what the white house has to say from the national security council, i wonder this is in the middle of the summit in june or july, we were i thought being taken for granted and our support was assumed partly because we were engaged on a contingency plan from the military side and tony blair said in private to bush sharecropper and also and public. a but the brits will be there. so it goes back to the british interest point* that sir roderick made preussen
being taken for granted and by the way what about the others? >> so we did not use any influence that we have as positively as we could have? >> charitably we underestimated the leverage at our disposal. >> earlier you said you were traveling around the country a lot and there was not support for the war? >> there was a building of the opposition to the war. quite simply, four or 54 more cities in the six months q2 one or two per month, it was not people punching the air. people were quite anxious and cautious about the. >> and the relates to the
government and others? >> absolutely. >> and of the reaction? >> i am afraid it is in the nature of the bureaucracy that telegrams and reports sent back to headquarters did not always the illicit a response. >> what military action? did the things change? >> not that i could see. no. >> briefly into the aftermath it is a subject but i know that a couple of us have some questions we want to ask before we finish. during the period of autumn 2002, you said in your book that postwar iraq was a blind spot in washington. the white house appeared to abort fully into the neocon idea with the overthrew -- overthrows of the it would be sweetness and light with automatic benefits elsewhere in the middle east.
does that continue to be their view as we move closer to the conflict? the participation in planning for the aftermath and assessing what is likely to happen in the aftermath, one of the conditions that we were trying to set, what happened in the period up to the time we left washington? >> great. there repeated theme of washington embassy reports throughout 2002 was indeed not just at my level but telling london after sadam planning the black hole, whatever you like to say, we've been in
january, february, 2003, it was possible for a member of the u.s. administration to say to me we deny the vignette agree what concepts for the aftermath. the most authoritative thing that i can tell you in the book that i found myself with a dinner in washington sitting next to vice president cheney. and we had not yet have the crucial vote in the house of commons. and he asked me what does this mean? and i said the prime minister has significant difficulties and it will be difficult to get out of me and his reaction was quite dismissive, once you get by your political problem and we get to baghdad, then we will be greeted with chosen
flowers by the population and all of this will be history and you and the president will get to what you deserve. a significant chunk of the administration that would not particularly concerned about the aftermath because they thought it would come out all right. somebody said to me when we're having a conversation, it is difficult talking about sadam hussain, back to the trouble with the europeans is that we were true -- to sniffy comment to condescending about the iraqi people who are completely capable to run a democratic system and we should allow them to do so but if you remove saddam hussein and the end 1,000 e
merge. the basically to answer your question, and nothing really changed on that score. >> they remain very optimistic? we did not get into the planning with them. >> we tried. we did not succeed because they have not gotten their house in order. we would send teams over. >> it never really happened. >> let me finish this point*. it happened but it was not enough. in the autumn and winter 2002, coming from london it teams came over and we gave the americans and afterwards what they found was fragmented interagency reaction but we knew the state department was working on that for ages they had terrific plans and good people.
in the end donald rumsfeld would not accept. and then the department of defense you have a different story. the trouble without engaging the americans with the aftermath was that they themselves did not create the office of every construction humanitarian assistance until february 2003. it was not for a lack of trying by british officials. i was not present in the meeting on january 31st 2003 when we know that the british team did say to the president what about the aftermath? that is it.
and not giving you any scoops but that has been out for a couple of years. seoul officials did try to engage but the heart of the matter, on the american side they did not get their act together and then it turned out the act was not good enough any way. as it was confirmed. >> thank you. one last question. to go back to the question of the british influence on the administration, do you feel that because whatever commitment may have been bed at crawford or in the summer after crawford, that britain's ability to say say, but to influence the united states policy was
made up in the minder bush's commitment to the u.n. security council speech was, in fact, the maximum and the central exceptions of the conditions of which we have laid down? >> i thought to the bush speech was a very good result for us. as far as it went. it is extraordinary emilie and with the u.n. as a whole. the reentry from the united states from unesco i thought was staggering. it was a very, very good results and i am in danger of repeating myself but a lot of influences playing on the white house including jack straw, colin powell,
and a number of others. it was a kind of high tide. we managed to keep the tide pretty high until the resolution demerged a couple months after the president's speech. resolution 41 was a significant diplomatic achievement. but it have the seeds of its own destruction in the ambiguity. the ambiguity was a crucial point* of what would be the trigger for war. americans and germans see it one way and everybody else interpret it the other and we were stuck in the middle. >> including the speech of the security council it was really our position being accepted? >> it was. but i would not say that our lobbying was decisive.
i think the august 5 meeting was decisive. if i must say, the other was our indispensable allies. it was part of the baggage and as far as i can see are from what i have heard they did not need a lot of convincing. >> can i carry on with this question of the influence? you set out the conditions but there were never bread lines and the sun it stands
as parliament has such worthies the best conditions we could expect under the circumstances? i think it will be rather difficult to lay down as a condition support for virgin airlines. [laughter] so within the policy of iraq, is there a way we might have related the policy so that by a putting our souls into a corner, it would be understood it was for the prime minister to move away from these conditions? >> the key condition, that
should have been a red line but wasn't, was that the military processes, should be subordinate to a coherent political and diplomatic strategy. part of the difficulties that emerge is that i as i have said earlier on a provisional timetable, a contingency timetable for possible military action was set to for early 2003. that was in reality, if you are going to go to the wind to set the car to push for the course. with the benefit of hindsight, i think what we should have said is let's try it through the u.n. to exhaust the when process
including their reintroduction of inspectors then depending on what sadam hussain does, decide, what anything comment to do militarily. you cannot do it neat like that. there has to be some contingency planning. by the back to what i wrote that the time that it would not necessarily be a panacea for saw all the contradictions but if you actually planned for military action in the school or a tunnel season in 2003 rather than the spring season, a lot of things might have been able to be an want. the key problem was to let the military strategy it should have been the other way around. >> when did you become aware of the military strategy?
the timetable so clearly in place? it did move over the course of 2002. >> what you started to hear was all contingency planning is pressed -- promised, the month january kept popping -- popping up. and i stress it is a contingency. i am not somebody who believes and operational decision was taken april through september 2002. then here and october of 2002, then i hear that january does not work because there is a problem with the turks so it started to go bad. then it turned out to be
march. it was a sliding scale within a narrow bracket. >> how much understanding was there between britain and the united states? not this sort two deadline were the british able to say it would help if we could push a back until late april? >> one of those discussions is when tony blair came to washington in january 31st, 2003. and he was seeking to lay lay -- delay and it was time for the second security council resolution that did not look unachievable. i remember sending a telegram the night before saying come on these two points you have not won the argument yet to prepare you have to say to the
president, 90 day delay and a security council resolution. he got the americans to make it an attempt for the resolution but again the americans were pressed by a it thy burlesque on a, and how were down in austria and there was a delay but it is not because we argued for but the american military said we cannot do this yet to actually until march 20. but strategically speaking it did not matter of it was january or march. if you believe, as i do, it should have been wrapped into a coherent literal diplomatic strategy, he would have gone for the autumn. >> just to complete this, in the way he got the worst of the both worlds that a
return to the security council but without the time to work it through with the constant pressure that the military buildup was taking place. >> that is what happened. it goes back to what i said earlier resolution 1441 was turned on its head. then we found ourselves to prove his innocence we ran a position of having to prove his guilt with the weapons of mass destruction before the military deadline that proved impossible. >> of this meeting in january 31st, you mentioned already the aftermath issue came up. we have a lot of discussions of the worst case on weapons
of weapons of mass destruction returned have to be completely wrong. and then it is the best case of what would happen after the war. was there any sense of concept not at all of how awful it could be or was this outside of everybody? >> in the discussion and it was the thought there'd be some time -- some kind of humanitarian disaster under the general and refocused on that with the refugees and stuff like that. the argument for their weapons of mass destruction will go back and forth until the end of time but american and british troops would not be equipped with anti-chemical weapons defenses of there have not been a very strong fear, however unfounded, that's he would
respond to these weapons. but what justice appeared in the calculation was the understanding fact after sadam was toppled you have to maintain law and order. and the continuity of the services otherwise you lose the population very rapidly and that was discussed. but when it happens when baghdad was captured the u.s. army division did not do that. they did not have orders to do that. there are other witnesses that will come before you better much better informed than i am. grammy know what i have read about because i retire the end of february. >> thank you very much. >> the few wrap but points over the space we have
occupied this morning but first comes from what we just discussed looking at the timing decision by the united states to go early 2003, a military momentum is clear may a major component of that decision and we'll hear more from other witnesses about that however there are some signs american military are at a responsible level see that it was not the end of march turn not go but is that your understanding? >> it is. the reason i said alternately was because in 2004, there'd be a presidential election campaign. hold on. how much time can you buy?
>> i went to the great group, karl rove and said how far? and he said end of 2003 at the latest. he might have said january 2004 otherwise it will be embroiled in the presidential campaign and the president will be accused of using the war to win the election. >> but it was not driven initially. >> i don't think so. that might have been a pure military planning option. >> purchase of military preparation? >> it could be. i don't know. >> two other planes and one partly connected with postwar planning but in effect you said the british prime minister have all leverage that was inserted in the aftermath of the iraq invasion. and sir laurence raise the
question had the british prime minister be more explicit of his condition condition, would that make it easier? of the other is timing. i took from what you were saying, really, the persuasive effect of 2002 came too late if we look at, for example,, a much more careful detailed aftermath planning, it would have to be the british influence it would have to be exerted by the summer 2002 that the latest to get something up and running. is that right? >> yes. i can't give a categorical answer. i don't believe it would have been impossible if we started in the autumn but
for us to get our act together if america have their act together september/october and we did likewise, then i am not trying to make a political point* whatsoever but quite often i think about this. what led margaret thatcher have done? she would have insisted, i take her name in vain for pete's sake. i think she would have insisted on a diplomatic strategy and demanded egregious clarity of what had happened. >> , the aftermath planning looking into the substance, it is it right to suppose the ups vacation element of it with catastrophic consequences
was a reaction in april with a breakdown of security rather than the precipitating cause? can you comment? >> is slightly beyond my time. i have baby you. [laughter] >> we were there in the run-up. >> and nine number of parallels was thrown into this negative 101 is what we did in germany. and remember somebody from the nsc telling me in january clearly we have to get rid of the top people and they're henchmen and rican not the falsified believe these completely or
there'll be no administration in iraq and three will need some of these people so mad that is important to hear. >> but the argument was lost >> moving back to something quite different you said something earlier this morning that the declared formal containment was over by spring and summer. we have testimony to argue that it remained a policy until 2002. looking back where should that line be drawn? >> actually, the trouble itself is a comment on the importance of that issue is i can't really remember ever in 2002 going into the senior and penetration still arguing.
they may have lasted quite a long time but i remember ever doing less. >> it is just of evolution? >> i do not remember sending tony blair. >> a different point* but he said this earlier about the relationship about the relationship on the other side of the atlantic but as i understand it, the relationship with the head of the national security council to different personalities, in the bush administration end, the great influence the price president cheney did not lend itself to a natural bilateral relationship with either the foreign secretary so how would that be managed? how was it managed?
>> i say this, really, let me back up. institutionally if you have a powerful vice president which is unusual, he may be the most powerful vice president ever. his institutional number was the deputy prime minister. how do i put it? it was an unbalanced relationship. [laughter] mihm probably did not reap the dividends institutionally it might have. what we did instead, when he came to washington he saw cheney their prime minister sought cheney on the first
visit february 2001 and cheney most importantly was that the camp david meeting on september 7th, 2002. i would see the rise president in between from time to time but a very good contact was his chief of staff "scooter" libby. and my embassy had very close contacts with the next layer down, particularly with those who were strong neocon folks. that is the way we got ourselves into the rise president's office and. >> thank you. there was communication? >> absolutely. >> i have a couple of final remarks after we close the evidence but just before i do that, are there any particular points you want to put in evidence there has not been opportunity to do?
>> i do not think so. my mind is slightly mushy at the moment. [laughter] >> i think our life to go back to something that i asked which is to remind people thought on the matter of iraq, although whole question of unilateralism which is multilateralism with the british-american relationships, there is more of a continuum here with previous administrations before george w. bush then maybe the democratic party or republican party would be willing to admit. there is a lot of continuity with some of the stuff that clinton did and summit is very, very different. but i think it would be wrong to sue the bush and administration simply as an
unusual and atypical aberration. but as it appeared on the scene. it is not like that. >> thank you. we will bring this situation to a close. sir christopher other telegrams or communications not made available to him from the archive we shall be pursuing fact assuming there is a documentary survival we shall have those in the information we have already got and that is still being added. that includes the first of our sessions on the anglo u.s. dimension. tomorrow we pursue the same theme with mr. green stock of our witness in the morning with the united states and interlocked united nations aspect for i thank you for your time this morning and our witnesses. thank you. >> thank you very much.
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i said when the senate opened today and when the senate opened today and >> mr. president i said with the senate opened today and i will say again, because of the long hours we have spent here, four weeks, there is a lot of tension in the senate. and feelings are high and people have very strong
concerns but what we have done and have to do but i hope everybody would go back to their gentlemanly ways and i would hope, i am trying to figure out how to say this, johnson and the ways or gentlemen that. [laughter] i hope everyone like rodney king, let's all tried to get along. it is a very difficult time for the next day or so. let's try to work through this. for those of the christian faith, we have a most important holiday. that is christmas. we hope everyone would keep in mind that out the time we've reflect peace and good
things in life, i would hope everyone can nassetta side of personal animosity and focus on that holiday. >> mr. president? >> let me add to my good friend the majority leader leader, he and i have an excellent relationship. reese have speak in the course of nearly every day with no animosity and we will work on an agreement that will be a way to end the session and hopefully the two of us together can be recommending something that makes sense for both sides in the not too distant future. >> who yields on time?
[inaudible conversations] >> senator? >> this time until 9:30 p.m. is equally divided. >> the senate will come to order. >> members please state your conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the senator from montana senate mr. president, it has been more than a month says the majority leader proceeded to move to the health care bill
now it is in the final throes of passing this historic legislation. put this senator thought would abraham lincoln called the better angels of our nature. that is why we have proceeded the way we did and that is the way the senator has always thought to legislate. a year and a half ago, i was at the library of congress but have a year ago i could be three bipartisan round table with health care experts. half a year ago the finance committee conducted a bipartisan authors of the bill before us today. that the senate is not in order. >> please state your conversations off the floor. >> the senator from montana. >> we went to the extra mile
i reached out to my good friend the ranking member of the finance committee and to the ranking republican member of the health committee. we sought to craft to build to appeal to the broad middle. we sought to craft a bill that could win the support of republicans and democrats alike. we met, a group of six, three democrats and republicans come amid before the 30 times we met and encouraged by the president to do so but our group met with the president several times and he encouraged us to keep pursuing negotiations hoping to get bipartisan agreement. we did not reached an agreement but the leadership on the other side of the aisle went to great lengths to stop us from doing so her even though we did not reach a formal agreement, we came very close. the principles we discuss our very much the principles upon which the finance committee bill to the bill.
they are reflected in the bill before us today. i might say actually the work began much earlier than i have already indicated. we have had about 10 hearings and the finance committee working toward health care reform also finished in november when you're ago, december 2008. i dare say with some trepidation that is the foundation that paper is the foundation from what almost all ideas of health care reform have emanated. i might also say to be totally fair, the 80 as of that paper have been floating around for some time. the principles came from massachusetts health care reform. most health care experts and economists who have been working on health care reform published ideas and we sought out the best and
compile them and put them together and that white paper published in november of last year. from the debates the senate has conducted this past monday would not know it. the principles we put together. during this debate someone on riverside have mischaracterized the bill before us. some on the other side setup a systematic campaign to demonize the bill. through bare assertion alone with the connection, we have sought to vilify the work. if one listened to their assertions alone one would not recognize the bill before us. let me quite simply state the facts someone the other side of the aisle assert it is a government takeover of health care. the fact is a nonpartisan cbo say it would reduce the fiscal role of health care. just three days ago cbo wrote "cbo expects the
proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary deficit following the 10 year budget window" end quote. some on the other side assert this bill adds to the nation's burden of debt. the fact is, the nonpartisan cbo says this bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and by 650 billion and one point* 3 trillion in the second 10 years for a reduction. between $650 billion and one point* $3 trillion. and this is the most serious deficit reduction effort in more than a decade. some on the other side of the aisle assert medicare. the fact is medicare at independent actuaries say
this bill will extend the life of medicare by nine years. the fact is it is the most responsible effort to shore up medicare in more than a decade. some on riverside assert this post not do enough to insure the uninsured. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says it will extend access to 31 million americans and other supplies have to go without. the cbo says "the sheriff legal residents would rise from about 83% to about 94% in quote nothing on the other side of the aisle proposed would come close. the cbo estimated the republicans offered in the house extended coverage to just 3 million people. the fact is that planned "is
non of the gold elderly residents with coverage would be 83% roughly in line of the current share. that is their interpretation with the house of representatives by contrast that with the increase of a person insured 83 percent up at 94%. i could cite the fact that there is no republican and substitute. some of the other side assert they simply prefer more modest reform of health care. but the fact is republicans controlled the senate 1995 through 2001 and 2003 to 2006 and before they took control in 199,436,000,000 americans, a 15 point* 8% of nine elderly were without courage. last year of their control nearly 47 million that is 17
point* 8% who were without health care coverage. the legacy of republican control was 10 million more americans uninsured. some on the other side say we are moving too fast part of the fact is, it was 1912 when former president theodore roosevelt first made national health insurance parts of the progressive party campaign platform. the fact is good will has been working on this for nearly a century. health care reform for america is now within reach. the fact is of serious effort to control health care costs is now within reach for the fact is that life-saving health care coverage is now within our reach. let us, at long last have the results and this time, not let this good
things look through our hand and at long last have health care reform for all. >> mr. president in a little while i will make a constitutional point* of order against the amendment. i will make that because we're working on an agreement when we can have the votes but i want to start talking about the reason i believe this bill is unconstitutional and the mandate on the individual and i will speak for about 10 minutes then resume my remarks at 9:30 a.m. after one of the democrats comes down to use their 15 minutes. mr. president this constitutional point* of order if it is rejected and the health care bill reform passes, i believe the courts should reject it on constitutional grounds. some of my colleagues may not be aware of the finance committee debate on the
constitutionality of this health reform bill. during the committee markup of this version of the health reform bill senator hatch raised thought-provoking constitutional questions and offered eight amendments to provide a process for the courts to promptly consider any constitutional challenge to the finance committee and the reform language in the bill. he chose the same language put into the bipartisan campaign reform act but unfortunately the amendment was non germain. names shares the concern the democrats' health reform bill violates the buy -- the constitution of these united states. as part of comprehensive health reform the democrats would require every single american citizen to purchase health insurance. americans to fail to buy health insurance that meets the minimum requirements would be subject to financial penalties. this provision can be found
sectioned 1,501 of the democrat health reform bill called the requirement to maintain minimal essential coverage. well this is a constitutional point* of order, i feel it is important to note in the declaration independence the founding fathers provided that "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights on these are life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. what happened to life liberty and pursuit of happiness? i guess americans can only have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they comply with this new bill and have a bronze silver gold or platinum health insurance plan. the founders and generations five dearly for the freedoms we have today and i question the appropriateness of this bill and specifically the constitutionality of this individual mandate.
is a really constitutional for this body to tell all americans they must buy health insurance coverage? if so, what is next? what personal liberty of property will congress seek to take away from americans in next? will we consider legislation in the future requiring every american to buy a car? a house? or to do something else the federal government wants? my friend and colleague senator hatch raised several questions during the debate in the finance committee. the following question, if we have the power simply to order americans to buy certain products, why did we need a "cash for clunkers" program for the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy efficient appliances? we can simply require americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators. mr. president, where do we
draw the line? or will we even drawled one battle? mr. president, the constitution draws the line. it is called the enumerated powers. i don't think congress has ever required americans to buy a product or service like health insurance under penalty of what i doubt that congress has the power to do that in the first place progress the cbo explained in the 1990's "amending requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. the government has never required people to buy and a good or service as a condition all lawful residents in the united states" end quote. get that is exactly what this health care bill would do. it would require americans to buy a product that many of them do not want, or simply cannot afford. some individuals may raise
the example of car insurance in the context of this debate. but requiring someone to have car insurance for the privilege to drive is much different than someone to have health insurance. as senator hatch pointed out those who don't drive don't have to buy a car insurance. he is right to live in new york city probably rely on subways or another form of mass transit and probably don't own a car so no reason to buy eight insurance be at the health care reform bill requires americans to buy health insurance whether or not they ever visited a doctor, i get a prescription, or have an operation. under this bill, if you do not buy health insurance coverage, you will be subject to a penalty. let's call the penalty what it really is, attacks. even worse come of this
penalty operates more like a taking a than a tax. of an american chooses not to buy minimal is essential health coverage, he or she will face rapidly increasing taxes up at $750 or 2 percent of taxable and come whichever is greater by the year 2016. there is no penalty for americans to qualify for hard shipper religious exemptions were no penalty for illegal immigrants or prisoners. americans typically pay taxes on a product or service that they buy or income that they earn. for example, if you fill up your car at the pump you pay a gas tax. it's very counterintuitive. this bill taxes americans for not doing anything at all other than just existing.
and this penalty is assessed through the internal revenue code. senator hatch made the following statement: "if this is a tax at all, it is certainly not an excise tax. instead, it is a direct tax. and while the constitution requires that excise taxes must be uniform throughout the united states, it requires that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states by population." now, just as the excise tax on high pleem yums i preep yums is- premiums is not taxable, those who do purchase insurance is not apportioned. i recognize that the authors of this health reform bill included an individual mandate in this bill based on the idea that health care costs would be spread among all americans and would ultimately reduce their health insurance costs. the claim is that insurance
costs will be lower because of costs will be lower because of the claim is that insurance costs will be lowered because of cost shifting, cost shifting will be reduced. this cost shift arguably takes place because health care providers, doctors and hospitals who provide free or uncompensated care to the uninsured shift the cost of providing that care to insure or paying patients. the hospital or doctor shift the cost of that on paid for care to the paying insured patient in the form of higher charges in order to cover the cost of uninsured patient. i understand this concept by an incredibly concerned of the individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from ladens and from americans across the country.
mr. president, i have read and studied multiple articles by scholars on the constitutionality of the individual mandate i believe the individual mandate provision in this health care reform bill calls into question several provisions of the constitution and i think the congress does not have the authority under its enumerated power to enact such a mandate. i know the supporters of the individual mandate claimed the commerce clause and taxes and general welfare in article 1 section eight of the constitution provides authority for congress to enact such a mandate. while i wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. according to the constitution, the federal government only has limited power. although the supreme court has upheld some far reaching regulations of economic activity, most notably record
neither caisse supports the individual health insurance mandate on the commerce clause. in these cases the court held congress was allowed to regulate and trust economic activity as a means to regulate interstate commerce in fungible goods. the mandate to purchase health insurance, however, is not proposed as a means to regulate interstate commerce. nor does it regulate or prohibit activity in either the health insurance or the health care industry. the mandate to purchase health insurance does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind whether economic or non-economic. instead, the individual mandate provision regulates no action.
it purports to regulate inactivity by converting the inactivity of mothballing insurance into commercial activity. so in effect advocates of the individual mandate contend that the congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states congress may reach the doing of nothing at all. in recent years the supreme court has invalidated to congressional statutes, that attempted to regulate mullen economic activities. to hold the individual mandate based on the commerce clause the supreme court would have to concede the commerce clause provides unlimited authority to regulate. this is the position the supreme court has never firmed and rejected in recent cases. congress lacks authority to regulate the individual's decision not to purchase a
service or enter into a contract. similarly i believe congress cannot rely on its power to tax, to justify imposing the individual mandate. this mandate amounts to a taking under the fifth amendment takings clause. i'd like to take for a moment -- i would like to take a moment to read the relevant parts of the fifth amendment. it says in part no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. now let me repeat the part of the fifth amendment most applies to the issue at hand. it says were shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. the bill before us today would require american citizen to devote a portion of his or her
income, that's his or her private property, to health insurance coverage. there is an exception of course for the religious reasons or financial hardships. but mr. president, if one of my constituents in nevada does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this requirement could be taking of private property under the fifth amendment. as noted in a recent article co-authored by dennis smith and former deputy general counsel of the department of health and human services, peter urbana wets requiring a person to purchase health insurance could be considered an arbitrary and capricious taking the matter how many hard ship exemptions the
federal government might dispensed. some of my colleagues also may be familiar with david rifkin and lehane kayce freed there washington d.c.-based attorney served in the department of justice during the reagan and bush administrations. in september were of ken and casey published in of hid in "the wall street journal" entitled mandatory insurance is on constitutional. i urge my colleagues to read this article and others i will be submitting for the record. in the op-ed rifkin and casey argued the health insurance mandate, and i quote, would expand the federal government authority over individual americans to an unprecedented degree. it also is profoundly and constitutional making healthy adults pay billions of dollars with premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal coverage
without raising substantial new taxes. in effect, this mandate would be one more giant across generational subsidy imposed on generations already stuck with a bill for the federal government's prior spending spree. a tax that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond con chris's authority. if the rule were otherwise, the congress could evade all constitutional limits by taxing anyone who does not follow an order of any kind. as the fourth chief justice of the supreme court john marshall stated the power to tax involves the power to destroy. well unfortunately, this could certainly be true in the context of this health bill. we in congress must zealously
defend our citizens right and prevent this from happening. i believe that the legislation before us violates the greatest political document in the history of the world, the constitution of the united states. i urge my colleagues to think very carefully about the constitutional issues i've raised. malae no most people around here don't like to talk about whether something is constitutional. we just want to do what feels good because we think we are helping people. but our founders set forth in the enumerated powers limits on what this body and this federal government could do and as members of congress one of our most important responsibilities is to protect come to defend and preserve the constitution of the united states, and in that light is not only appropriate but essential for this body to
question whether it is constitutional for the federal government to require americans to buy health insurance coverage. we shall also question whether it is constitutional for the federal government to tell americans what kind of health insurance coverage they have to purchase. so not only does this bill tell them they have to buy health insurance it tells americans what kind of health insurance must be purchased. americans also deserve to know how the bill will impact their ability to choose the health insurance coverage that best fits their needs. so that is exactly why i am raising this constitutional -- will raise this constitutional point of order. freedoms -- freedom and choice are very precious rights. let's not bury our heads in the sand and take away freedom and choice from american citizens.
we need to think about this individual mandate very carefully. mr. president, have several articles year, and i would like to read a couple of quotes from these articles. the first one is from the "washington post" by david rifkin. it says the otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the production distribution or consumption of commodities, but for no other reason people without health insurance exists. the federal government does not have the power to regulate americans simply because they, are there. americans significantly in two
cases united states versus lopez, 1995, and united states versus morrison in 2000. the supreme court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate mullen economic activities merely because through a chain of causal effect they might have an economic impact. these decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that by enumerated its powers of the framers denied conagra's the type of general police power that is exercised by states. mr. president, i would ask consent after the senator from illinois that my statement in the record what appeared as if i have given it continually. >> without objection it will be shown in the record. >> i would yield to the democrat
side of the aisle. >> senator from illinois. >> mr. president, thank you. and i'd like to thank the senator from nevada for that courtesy. thank you, mr. president. as this debate draws to a close and my colleagues and i prepare to vote on a health care reform bill i recognize the long hours and the negotiation have left some nerves and tempers frayed. that's why i come to the floor today. although our work keeps us away from our family and friends for much of this holiday season, i see no reason we cannot share good cheer to one another right here in washington. so in the spirit of the season, mr. president, i would like to share my own version of a
classic of a story with my good friends on both sides of the aisle. and it goes something like this, mr. president. it was the night before christmas -- it was the night before christmas and all through the senate the right to live our health care bill no matter what was in it. the people had voted, the mandated reform, but republicans blew off the gathering storm. we clogged up the senate, they cried with a gregorian grin, and in the midterm elections will get voted in. the regular folks needed help right this second but fund-raisers backend. democrats could not win because the majority was simply too thin
then across every state there rose such a clatter. the senate rushed out to see what was the matter. all spring from their desk and wan through the floor, through the coat room and light out the door. and the but in the world would be quite so raucous but a mandate for change for the democratic caucus. the president, the speaker, and force leader agreed, had answered the call in our hour of need. more rapid than the eagles, the provisions they came, and they whistled and shouted and called them by name. better coverage, cost savings, strong public plan; accountable options, we said yes we can. no exclusions or changes for pre-existing conditions.
let's pass the bill that restores competition. the democrats came together to fight for the american people that christmas eve night, and then and a twinkle heard under the door the roll call was closed and was time to go home. despite the obstruction the tactics of some the filibuster had broken, the people had one. and a good bill was ready for president obama ready to sign and in health care drama. the democrats explained as they drove out of sight better coverage for all, even our friends on the right. and i say to all of my colleagues in this season, merry christmas and happy new year. thank you, mr. president.
>> on that map i wonder why shouldn't there be a sticker in the state of florida according to published reports according to one of my favorite columnists, dana milbank in this morning's "washington post" says gaiter eight the answer to the grandfather clause that will allow for them to preserve their pricing medicare advantage programs. so maybe should we have one of the stickers for florida and by the way that will cost my constituents more money because they will not have that same deal and should there be a sticker according to again milbank come hannah montana senator baucus secured medicare coverage for anyone exposed to asbestos as long as they worked in a mine in montana. should there be one there and
says i -- banaa another one that dana quotes pork in price cuts, senator tom harkin won more medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the commonly found in iowa, and maybe there should be -- i don't know if you have north dakota. it says, and i quote again from dana milbank senators byron, dorgan and conrad both democrats would enjoy a provision bringing higher medicaid payments to hospitals and doctors in, quote, frontier counties of states as let's see north dakota. and should there be one for hawaii, mr. milbank goes on to say why he with two democratic senators will get richer payments to hospitals and treat many uninsured, and should there be a sticker from michigan,
quote, hobaugh, and by quoting from the article, home of two other democrats would durham a half year medicare payment for some reduced fees for blue cross blue shield of vermont. vermont, senator bernie sanders held off for a larger medicaid payments for states neighboring massachusetts would get one, too. i guess there's a number of mabey states that should have stickers so that the american people can see where these special deals were cut out and the american people, the majority of the population of this country can see where they were not and they are going to pay more while those states payless because not just their location but because they happen to be behind closed doors and cut special deals. >> mr. president on wonder if i can enter this colloquy very briefly. i thank the center. >> i ask unanimous consent.
>> without objection so ordered. >> i just want to point out do the senators no flexible that under the underlying legislation the government would pay all costs newly eligible enrollees' through 2016. that is in this legislation we are talking about the so-called expansion population. that is those between 100% of poverty and medicaid and the 133% of poverty medicaid and under the underlying statute all -- speed let me ask the senator does that mean all these states are being treated the same? >> it means through 2016 of these states are treated the same. >> this happens to be 2009, not 2010. what happens between now and 2016. >> beginning next year through 2016 all states would get 100%
payment for that expansion coverage. >> what would happen then after the current legislation? >> if i might just one sentence background. today as the senator knows different states see different medicaid federal contributions to medicaid. it varies according to the states and the average is 57% federal, as the averages about 50 states on average 57% of the cost of medicaid is paid for by federal government. >> the same provision inserted for the state of arizona that was inserted for the state of florida you don't have a problem with that, do you? do you have a problem with that? >> i can only answer one question at the time to read the first question is from mississippi, then after 2016 all
states but not 57 but 19% on average 90% of all -- we are talking up the statute population. >> if i could reclaim my time. >> the senator yield to me the other day and i appreciate that. we have a number of republicans who want to speak. the fact of the matter is after 2016, every state in a red has to tax their own citizens and pay their states' share except vermont, massachusetts and nebraska, and i still challenge any colleague in this united states senate to come before and say that that is fair. i do not believe they will say that's fair. >> my question to the center of montana is this, with the sadr of montana be willing to have the same provision that senator nelson, according to these reports in search of a grandfather calls that will allow the floridians to preserve their pricing medicare advantage
program, would he accept unanimous consent agreement right now that same provision applied to every state in america? i ask unanimous consent the same provision that was put in for the state of florida by senator nelson that would apply to every state in america. >> reserving the right to object i think it would be highly inappropriate for me to object so i will object to that but i also might want to point out that on average on will sam pays 90%, 90% of the medicaid payments for this expansion population after the year 2016. >> the objection is heard. >> i thank the objection heard results the case. i mean, it's -- those are comforting words on the part of the senator from montana who i appreciate, but the fact is that there are special deals for special people.
it's well known, it is very well known. could i mention my colleagues before they go, one comment is a personal privilege here. the senator of louisiana came to the floor, and she said and i quote, this morning she said recently just yesterday senator john mccain our colleague of arizona claimed the american people are opposed to reform and he speaks about the will of the majority. i would like to remind respectfully my colleague of arizona at the will of the majority spoke last year when the elected president of thought to be present and decided not to elect him and the president is carrying out the will, the president is to read the will of the majority to provide hope and opportunity. i say in response to that i really didn't need to be reminded. i have not forgotten. [laughter] sometimes i would very much like to. but i appreciate the reminder. the fact is the senator from louisiana and other senators
should know that poll laughter poll, the public opinion partially because of the senator from mississippi is pointing out the latest says u.s. voters oppose health care plan by a wide margin, the university national poll finds voters 83 to one plans should not pay for abortion and it says american voters mostly disapprove of the plan 53-36 and disapproved of 56-38% of president obama's handling of the health care issue and finally, if i could remind my friend from -- my colleague from louisianan i did carry her state. [laughter] >> if i might jump in here, like probably every senator here i read the newspapers back home as every morning i start my day. there was an editorial in the
lincoln journal star on the 21st of december that speaks to this issue of special deals, and i thought it was excellent. now the lincoln journal star covered need for a long time. sometimes i agree with him, sometimes i don't. sometimes they agree with me. but i always respected the work that they do and here's what they said in their editorial. they said since when has nebraska become synonymous for cenacle what's in it for me tide of politics? the term cornhuskers kickback is already a favorite of television's talking heads and they go on to say that all the rest of the country sees this deal. the editorial continues under its provisions the federal government would pay all additional medicaid costs for nebraska in perpetuity. the congressional budget office
says it estimated the deal may be worth $100 million over ten years. they go on to say i think in very powerful language the deal is the embodiment of what is wrong in washington instead of thoughtful careful work on problems washington lawmakers cobble together special deals, dubious, financial accounting and implementation on a grandiose scale. and they devote a paragraph to the many special deals cut, and your board illustrates one. >> i asked -- >> if i could finish this, senator mccain, then you can ask me. they say this, it's time to push the reset button on health care reform. the effort has gone awry. >> does in the spring of a larger issue?
i ask our colleagues to comment on this. whether our job is to do whatever we can to simply help our state even if it has at the expense of other states the senator from mississippi pointed out or is our title united states senator, arizona, nebraska, mississippi, etc.. my title is not arizona senator, u.s.. its u.s. senator arizona. so of course i'm there to represent the people of my state. but is a u.s. senator's job to go out and do something which would then the citizens quote and influence? is that what people said constituents you to do. the majority leader said yesterday and i quote, i don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this
bill that was important to them. senator leader harry reid reasoned when asked at a news conference monday about the cash for coach recusation and, quote and if they don't have something in this important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them. it doesn't speak well of us when we do something like the senator of mississippi pointed out? that favors montana and not the rest of the country? that helps the seniors in medicare advantage in florida and not arizona? is that we are sent here to do? that has never been my view of what our obligations to our citizens but also to the citizens of this country, and i would ask my colleague -- >> mr. president? thank you. here is what this has come to. in the next 48 hours, this 2400-
some page bill was going to pass the senate but how did we get there? was it on the way things are usually done in this body? not at all. one party has been able to gather 60 votes to vote for this. not one person from the other side is going to vote for it. how did they get the 60 votes? did they get it by arguing the south? they didn't do this. they have bluntly, boldly and on the front of virtually every newspaper in this country, they have bought the votes to pass this bill to get to the 60's. they bought the last handful of votes and they didn't even buy it with their money. they bought it with the american people's money. that is wrong. the explanation i heard from the majority leader the other day is that's the way it's done. that may be the way this is done in banana republics and the way this is done in the third world countries, but this is america.
american people are outraged over this. the other part got to be outraged. i heard one member quoted saying i was too stupid to get any money from my state. i heard the minority leader say you're not doing your job if you don't have something for you. where's the outrage from the other side not only the process itself but how they are getting snuckered. where is the outrage? i watched the debate from the other side and have seen members come down and say the american people want this. are they living in a cave? sure there's a handful of american people that want this but let me tell you who doesn't, the united states conference of bishops don't want this, the national right to life don't want this, not one republican once this bill read the democrats don't want eckert will listen to what howard dean, the former leader of the party, of the democratic party said,
quote, at this point, the bill does more harm than good, end of quote. ask any democratic governor in america. this bill transfers $25 billion in costs, and on unfunded mandates to the governors and their taxpayers. they've got to come up with $25 billion. they don't want it. i stood here and listened to the other side say this is wonderful for small business. a small business is quite come out well. then why does the national federation of independent small business say, quote, the senate bill fails small business? the national association of district for some of the small business entrepreneur should council says small-business groups says reid bill, more of this and cut taxes, big spending and nothing to help the lower
insurance costs. associated builders and contractors are against it. the national association of manufacturers are against, the independent electrical contractors, the international franchise association. even the labor unions have said don't tax our health care benefits. we agree. we are on the side of the labor unions. we shouldn't be taxing health care benefits. but said all that aside. these are people that have an ax to grind. the american people do not want this bill. the people coming out saying the american people want this, i don't know whether they are not treating their newspapers or listening to the mills of their office, quinipac says this morning out this morning tuesday through sunday 36% of the american public support the health care spending bill. 36%. 53% oppose, that is 18%
difference. dallas is 61% of people don't want this. stop coming out here saying the american people want this. the american people don't want this. you want it but the american people don't want it. leaders of your own party don't want it, the labor union doesn't want this, and most will small business doesn't want this. i've listened to anecdote after anecdote after anecdote from the other side and there's very touching stories and everybody is sympathetic with that, but you don't legislate using anecdotes because you're only here in one side of the store, you are not hearing of the fact that have to with anecdotes and say this will solve that. that is not the way you legislate and is certainly not with you argue a point. i've heard them come out, the other side say when we pass this 94% of american people will have
insurance. will be covered by health insurance. you know, in court they say you have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that is exactly why. you can't say 94% of the people are going to be covered. people say what a wonderful bill, it recover 94% of the american people. it cost $2.5 trillion. but it doesn't, the bill only eds another 7%. the fact that they don't tell you is 87% of americans are already covered by some kind of health insurance so don't say this is a glorious victory because we are now going to cover 94%, 87% are already covered. this is democrat its worst to tax for years without giving major benefits, some minor benefits building of the minor benefits until later this plan gimmickry saying how wonderful this is. it's not when to add to the
national deficit because we are going to collect taxes for four years and then only then start the benefits. well you know what we have here? when all is said and done used it away you have $2.5 trillion. 2400 pages most people don't understand, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and i can give you one fact that is the best reason to vote against this and that is it cuts half a trillion dollars out of medicare benefits. if you are a senior watching this, half a trillion dollars of medicare benefits are going to disappear i heard the president and my friends on the other side say if you like your program, you like your insurance plan you're going to be able to keep it. try to tell that to the people on medicare and vintage. it is being stripped, eliminated under this bill. indeed if you read the rules and regulations under this bill, the
plan that you have won't even exist when it's done. i heard the other side say that you republicans are unaware of the fears of the american people. let me tell you something, the american people are frightened. they are afraid and it isn't just this health care bill. they sit here for the last year and they watch stimulus packages costing a trillion dollars. they've watched multibillion-dollar bailout. the have seen buyouts, trillion dollar deficits running up, they've seen the national debt running into the trillions, and yes, they are afraid, but it is not lost it is doing good to them. it is you that have done it to them and it's you that have committed the act that put the fear into the hearts of the american people. don't do this. stop this nonsense. you have the opportunity still to stop this. you can do it. the american people don't want this. stop the insanity.
>> i would say to my friend, i am afraid. i am afraid for my country. we are going to have a vote sometime between now and christmas eve on raising the decline. will this be a short-term thing? i doubt as a single republican will vote for that, then we have to come back in february and do the same thing the debt piling up on our country is something to be frightened about, something we need to fight against and be resolute about. we are not shutting crocodile tears but i'm frightened and we should be if we want our economy to stay strong, and the fact we are adding $2.5 trillion in an entitlement program which apparently the majority has the vote for is simply going to add to this enormous debt so it is
no wonder when you add the medicare cuts, the taxes most states are going to have to pay unless they cut a special deal on top of the tremendous national debt we are facing, the american people have a right to be frightened and worried. >> i would say and i don't know how many of you have seen the editorial in today's investor's business daily and i ask unanimous consent to have it put in the record of the senate, and it's called louisiana purchase and omaha steaks. and the editorial said, and this is politics, mary landrieu's payoff was the new louisiana purchase. then when nelson got uncle sam to become nebraska's future medicaid tab. they go on to say maybe we should just put the senate votes on ebay. the same nelson won a permanent exemption from the state share of medicaid expansion for
nebraska. ogle sam will take hit for 100% of the medicaid expansion for nebraska forever. the world's greatest deliberative body has now become the most corrupt. that is what this says and goes on to say it's not a of legislating is about. it's about bribery. mr. president, it is horrible as a nation to have these things written about this institution when we should be above any of these sorts of claims and i look at the map that my colleague of mississippi has with just nebraska as the special deal. we should be looking at ways to improve health care for all americans. improve the quality, make it more affordable, make it more available, give them the access they need. i've brought for amendments the other day after senator reva brought his massive amendment each was rejected and they were
things that would actually improve this bill to make it better for americans. so i stand here looking at this at a time and headline after headline and editorial after editorial talks about how bad it is the way this bill is being pushed fourth in a way that is nothing any child would want to know is happening in their country as we try to get them involved in the process and learn and study and say maybe i should become involved in this. this isn't much of legislating in america is about. we are better than this and if you need to do these sorts of things to get the 60 vote, the bill wasn't good enough to pass. if the ideas in the bill are not good enough to get the votes, then shouldn't pass. in this country we look for bipartisan solutions to the big issues of the day. that's what we did need by allowing legislature. major issues passed with overwhelming numbers and that's what happens in this country
through the course of this country the bills have come forth with large numbers of supporters and that's how you get the country to follow you. not trying to force through a vote and by a vote here and there, to just squeeze by with a minimum amount of support that's what we to change policy that's going to affect every member of the united states everyone personally. and one sixth of our economy. that is not the way to do it. it should never be the way again and i'm looking for one democrat to stand up and say that's not the way. i'm not going to vote for this thing. >> there was a senator from colorado came down on the floor and proudly stated he had not asked for anything and gotten anything and i would like to ask the senator of nebraska because that seems to be the center of a lot of attention but first of all, you know there's a little booklet we put out by the government printing office who says how our laws are made and
we get out to our constituents. we send it to the schools all over america. i've never seen anything in the booklet. it's interesting. this is you get behind closed doors and cut deals, get behind closed doors particularly after your president said during the campaign -- and we are a little bit cynical when we've gone about politics and campaign promises but time after time the president said i'm going to have negotiations around a big table, doctors, hospitals, nurses, drug companies, they will get a seat at the table. they just won't be able to buy every chair but what we will choose have negotiations televised on c-span so people can see who's making arguments on behalf of constituents, arguments on behalf of the drug companies, of all people -- recognize the drug companies who got the best deal will fall?
pharma triet who's been the most money lobbying and on advertising? pharma. and who is going to cost the american consumer $100 billion because it could have been saved by the consumer if we had been able to report prescription drugs. but i would ask my friend from nebraska that this one with a louisiana purchase and probably the florida deal and nebraska deal has gotten the most publicity and fasuba because it was a 60 of the vote. i don't know if it is the biggest in terms of money because we will be finding deals in this bill for months we will be finding provisions even though we and our staff carefully read it. it's not 200700 pages for nothing. so, how -- i would ask the senator from nebraska how does this go over in the heartland of america? how do the people of nebraska
who see that they've gotten some kind of special deal provision certainly reported in the media, special provision and that would come at the expense of other taxpayers in america? i'm curious reaction the senator from nebraska gets. >> it doesn't go over. it simply doesn't. in every way possible the last four or five days i've been asked to do you support this special deal for nebraska. i don't know. i think it's wrong. and i will also say and i can read through all the special deals we have all got the list. it's florida, louisiana, montana and on and on. i came to the floor this morning and ask unanimous consent that all the special deals be taken
out and i listed a long list and of course there was objection to that request for unanimous consent. why would we want to try to pass legislation with all of this? it makes no sense to me. but let me take a step back. we remember a few months ago there was a big story that nevada was going to give a special medicaid deal and it was right about that time we took a few days off, and i went back home and i did telhami tings like i have done for years and years and years. but we invested time and effort and identified six principles of health care. they are on my website. you can go look at them. i literally had a power point presentation. i did for town hall meetings and a peace principles up. and one of the principles was no
car routes, no backroom deals, no special deals, and i presented that to the people at the town hall meetings. i did tons of interviews and explained why i felt the way i did, and people were so i rate that possibly the nevada was going to get this special deal. since then i think that's fallen to the wayside but all these other things have come a long. that is why i read the lincoln journal star editorial. this is an editorial-page that sometimes likes what i'm doing and sometimes it does not. and over the years, they have not hesitated to take me to task. but they've looked at this and said since when has nebraska become synonymous cynical what is in it for me to the politics. they went on and said it's time
to hit the reset button. we are not getting this right at all. we simply are not getting this right. and they talk about the issue of cost containment and about the actuary's report which i had spent a little bit of time talking to them about and of your folks around the state. and after looking on all of that, they just sit look, this isn't going the way it needs to go for the american people. now, here's what i would say to all of my colleagues in the senate. i love my state. i love the people there. they are such honest, decent people. you know, in many parts of our state, people believe you steal a contract not by putting things in writing but by shaking hands and giving your word. it they don't want this kind of
attention. they don't want to be on the evening news every night, the talking heads talking about the cornhuskers kickback or whatever it is, the latest terminology. they want to be free treated fairly. they asked me to come here and represent them as fervently as i could to try to do all i can to get fair treatment for them. but not a single person in any town hall life ever had stood up and said you know, mike, i disagree with that principle. i want you to go back and get me a special deal or give our state a special deal. so, senator mccain, i appreciate you asking me the question. i feel very strongly about this. i wish that the other side would consider my request for a unanimous consent agreement that says timeout, everybody.
let's pull out the special deals with its nebraska or montana or whoever. it doesn't matter to me. let's pull those out and take a step that and work for what senator risch talks about and the rest of us. we can get 80 votes on health care reform bill. i guarantee of this bill. >> i would echo what the senator from nebraska just said. and i know my friend from arizona has been one of the most outspoken critics of special deals and special earmarks. this is of some catchall appropriations bill to get through to the end of the year. this is one of the most major pieces of legislation any member of the senate currently serving will ever vote on. this is one-sixth of the american economy, and the american people are learning about the special car --
carve-outs where one state will be treated differently not because of a formula or poverty level but because the political power. and it would seem to me that one member of the majority party in these next two days might step forward and say you know your right and i will not be a party to this. >> with me make one additional comment. i've seen it reform goes through the congress of the united states. the first 1i saw was when we say social security and major reform of social security. that was no backroom dealing. it was a straightforward proposal how to fix social security. we fixed welfare. it was welfare reform. again, open, honest bipartisan negotiations and bipartisan agreement. well, for every form social security reform, the efforts we
made at tobacco reform, campaign finance reform, immigration reform, all the reforms and others, patient bill of rights, every reform i've ever been involved in has had two major and seóul components. one is bipartisan, never to come there was no special favors or deals cut or provisions and thousands of pages of legislation. so again, we know where the train is headed and we know what is going to have been a short time from now. but they will make history. we will make history. you will have rammed through a, quote, reform and strictly partisan basis without the participation of the other party over the objections of the majority of the american people done and done closed negotiations and results
announced with no debate or discussion in this side without debate or discussion. the american people don't like. they don't like us to do business that way. and i am sure this peaceful resolution that's going out, going on already because as the senator from idaho pointed out because the involvement in the car companies, the stimulus, the bonus, the generational theft, this on top of that is going to give greater fuel to the fire already burning where they want real change which they were promised in the last presidential campaign and certainly did not get. >> one of the great ironies is we to be at 8:00 on the 24th when this bill passes with the 60 votes old democrat immediately following the vote is going to be a vote again all
16 democrats and only democrats raising the national debt. what an irony to put $2.5 trillion in spending of a new social and thailand program adding it to the free already huge entitlement programs that are in a process of bankrupting america, adding this to it and turning right around and increasing the debt ceiling and when they increase it is going to be -- nobody knows how much it's going to be, hundreds of billions, but then that is where we are going to last two months. they will have to come back again in february and increase the national debt ceiling again. what irony? what irony? >> this legislation turns everything we know about budgeting on its head although it's been done before and it's been done by republicans to power shame. today if you buy an automobile you can drive it for a year before you have to pay for it.
under this bill, it is the opposite. you pay the taxes you have the reductions in benefits and than four years later you start having whatever benefits that accrue from this legislation. so for four years small business people, people all over america will see their health care costs increase before there's a simple tangible result. remarkable. >> the senator mentioned the floor and a carved out and asked why -- perhaps i should have it on my map. the reason i didn't it involves medicare advantage and not medicaid. the map was about medicaid. so he makes a good point. about the florida carve out and i had a discussion with some of the leadership on the democratic side on the floor of the senate the other day about medicare advantage. the strong assertion on that side is that medicare and
vantage is not medicare. as a matter of fact, some of the leadership in this very body said the booklet the government puts out that says medicare and vintages part of medicare should be changed. the words should be stricken from the hand out because it really is not part of medicare. the website the federal government has seen that medicare advantage is part of medicare change because it is an insurance company masquerading as manager. let me take a second. this is betty and she represents -- she's from louisianan. i don't know if she voted for -- if she was one of the 50% of the louisiana who voted for senator mccain but she enjoys medicare advantage. she was told during the election
that if you like your coverage under any plan that the obama administration would approve you get to keep that coverage. she gets hearing aids, vision coverage, dental care, and she likes hermetic. branton edge. now, if betty is one of the 150,000 seniors in the state of louisiana that enjoys this benefit she is at risk of losing it. but if she happens to be in the state of florida in any of these counties with the 100 million-dollar car out, she's fortunate enough to keep her medicare and advantage. in other words, it may not be guaranteed but she likes it, and obviously one of the senators from florida believes his constituents really like it.
so again, a carved out so this non-guaranteed, non-medicare benefit not very good, that they could keep it in florida. that is in the bill and no one could deny that special treatment is given to that one state under medicare that vantage, and again, i challenge any american to come on the floor of the senate and tell me how that's fair. >> well, it's not, and there's been a number of references to our friend and colleague, the late senator ted kennedy. let's take a look at the book his brother, kennedy wrote profiles in courage, and as we've seen all of this it is time for one courageous democrat to stand up and say this is about our country to read this is about our country, not about a kickback. this is about health care, not a
hand in the cookie jar. that is what we need, one courageous democrats to stand up and say i don't want to be part of this editorial the talks about the louisiana purchase and allstate's. i don't want to be a part of this that calls this the world's greatest deliberative body has become the most corrupt. i don't want to be part of this that says this is about bribery. it means one courageous democrats, one out of 60 to stand up and say on am going to vote no. we need to back up. we need to think about this. we have 100 members in the senate who want to reform health care in this country and get costs under control and want to improve quality and want to improve access. 100 senators want to do that. that is the goal of each and every one of us here. we need one courageous senator to say it is time, time now to take a step back. let us go home over christmas. let us think about this. clich of stock to our constituents at home.
let us hear what they have to say about this looking out for number one, 100 million the car we need the kind of courage that john kennedy wrote about and profiles of courage. your governor and say governor, what do you think about this? help me out here. should i vote -- i'm in caucus and they have bought enough votes to get to the 60, but i got to tell you, i don't like the way they did it, number one, and number two, what about the rest of us? we didn't get -- we didn't get the $300 million, we didn't get the x number of million, help me out, governor. you know, they say they're going to shift $25 billion to the states that you're going to have to come up with. what do you think? do you think i ought to vote for this? or maybe, maybe if one of us steps forward and says, you know, i'm going to vote no and i want to set the reset button and want to set the reset button and
>> let's add to this right. we can do this rise. we are americans. we are the most innovative people in the world. all we have to do is get together and to do with. but to jam this down the throat of the american people, make no doubt about it, this is jim down the throats of the american people on the eve of christmas in the middle of the night come in the face after poll after poll that says do not do this to us. this is what is happening. there are courageous democrats out there. >> let me tell my friend from idaho about courageous democrats. with the house version was being considered a number of democrats said i cannot vote for it to a record is very
close a huge majority, one member of the house cahal today basically said i cannot take it and switched parties. the member from alabama is joining the republican conference but while democrats have no intention of switching parties said i cannot vote for it. do not count me in. bart stupak is a representitive a courageous pro-life representitive from michigan and voted for the bill. i do not question his motives he did what he thought was right but before he voted for it, he made sure the legislation was included in the house version to make sure the the high-end language which is a lot of the way of for almost two decades was included. here's what representatives tupac said yesterday or the day before, about the
pro-life compromise included in the version that we will have to vote on in the senate. it is not acceptable it is a good dramatic shift in federal policy to allow the government to subsidize insurance policies with the portion coverage. that is a release of december 19. i appreciate the courage of someone of a democrat state
what we voted on, it will not be passed by the senate when it comes out of conference. bart stupak said the my switch from agnes today no. i appreciate the courageous democrat. >> i appreciate the senator from mississippi bringing this important aspect to our attention and continuing to do so. to pick up on what dr. barrasso said about the kennedy family. i have a close relationship develop over the years with senator ted kennedy and rework together on a variety of issues. there is a great irony from a constant the references to senator kennedy who always began legislation by getting members of the other side of the i/o committed to working
to gather whether immigration reform, health care reform, one of the great achievements of president bush, no child left behind. every dealing i ever had with senator kennedy was to reach out and this established a fundamental base for agreement then move forward in a bipartisan fashion which is one of the reasons he has such an impressive legislative record. how did the other side do it? without one bit of serious negotiation or without bringing anybody on board. no one. now you have a 68/40 vote a pure partisan vote and the outcome when there has never been in history a single reform that was not bipartisan. that is why the american people are rejecting this. that is why the american
people see through it to hear the constant refrain the american people want this summer read at the polls. the american people have figured this out. it will be one of the great historic mistakes. made by the congress of the united states. >> if i may say to my friend from arizona i have the opportunity to observe kennedy over the years and that is the way he operated. but to make a point* from the senator from mississippi is observation about congress plans to pack. he was not asking for rum day special deal in return for his vote. rather, he was trying to establish a principle that would apply to all americans. is that not the case? >> i would say that is
correct. i commend my colleague, am i former house colleague for taking that principle stand. >> cannot the same thing beat said from senator lieberman? i am sorry he voted for this monstrosity but as i understood the senator the burmans position and senator mccain knows have very, very well, in his position was that the government goes into the insurance business, i cannot support this bill. not i am open for business and what can you do for connecticut. >> there may be on the floor a unanimous consent agreement to remove but nebraska medicaid deal. if there is in a unanimous consent agreement at any time that means every special provision whether from nebraska or any other
state because we still have the louisiana purchase 300 billion, florida medicare grandfather clause clause, 2,530,000,000,000. the connecticut hospital i guess. it is always and legislations you have to do research to see who qualifies. so i hope again we could have agreement that all of the special provisions that affect certain specific states would be removed as well. i think that would go over rather well with the american people. i just want to say to my colleagues, they do for your passion. i know a lot of people to not watch or proceedings on the floor, but it has played a role in educating the american people as to what we're facing. the media and the advocacy group's grass-roots, but i have a great privilege
engaging in these colloquies with my colleagues. that has been both helpful to my constituents but also frankly, helpful to me to work with doctors and people involved in the issues, a former governors, others. we did make some kind of contribution which is what we're sent here for. >> you have two minutes. >> of less my colleagues want to join and i want to thank them for joining us and thinks to senator mccain of the most distinguished public servants, would you have sacrificed for his country and a bent on this four hour after hour. i would simply point* out the bill we will be asked to vote for on christmas eve private ministrations own chief actuary, increases health care costs, but
threatens the health care for seniors and threatens health care coverage and actually increases the amount of the gdp spend on health care rather than increasing. are these not facts or statements that i have had but assessments made for the chief of actuary for the obama administration. there is still time, even if the bill passes we will go home for christmas, the holidays coming here from our constituents. i hope we listen to that over 60 percent of americans who say be a bias you not to vote for this legislation. >> bid is time for a new chapter to be a victim profiles in courage and all they have to do is stand up and say no, i will not be
part of what has been called corruption in the senate. not be part of what has been called bribery in the senate i will be back courageous person and vote no pritzker it is time for a new chapter of profiles encourage. >> it is the understanding and mississippi have the floor? >> i have several points to make. first, as a matter of personal privilege on behalf of the people of montana montana, the senator from arizona may sound like we a gauge been a sweetheart deal. and i think the senator from arizona would agree that he would not want his constituents to sever in an environmental calamity or his constituents to have a
declaration of public emergency because of the asbestos. reassume the senator would very much stand up for his constituents. let me explain this provision. in 1980 this congress passed a law. that legislation said would never there is a separation of a public emergency because of a contamination contamination, the government has the opportunity to declare a public emergency and help those people get medical care because of contamination of asbestos but in this case, especially , this is even greater damage that would ordinarily be seen from the asbestos. i would assume the senator from arizona would want his constituents to have hope
with contamination from asbestos. >> may i respond? to recall the senator had to do is to have an authorized and bring it up on the floor as an appropriation and i am sure his arguments would be more agreeable than jimmy and to a bill that passed with health care reform building it into the policy of health care reform. this bill, legislation, and this cause has been turned back several times. i responding. >> he is not dealing in good faith with this issue. the second point* come it is disrespectful, unseemly for senators and this body to invokes the names of ted kennedy and jack kennedy and opposition to this bill. it is disrespectful. frankly, i am very much
surprised the senators would go to the level in both the names of ted kennedy and jack kennedy in opposition to this legislation. talk about "profiles in courage", where is the courage of one senator to stand up and vote against health care reform? where is the courage? where is the courage of one democratic senator to stand up against health care reform? i will turn that around. "profiles in courage" by jack kennedy our senators to tried to find resolutions. they want to compromise and to work together. where is the senator on that side of the aisle that has the courage to break from there of leadership, a break from the partisanship to work together to pass health care reform? where is the courage?
where is the senators that will stand up and work on a bipartisan basis? weir? we have reached out our hands for a bipartisan agreement and health care reform probably to a fault. to a fault because for months and months, the senator anyway, and other senators tried to work on a bipartisan basis. the chairman watch to this end of sought it happen and senator grassley and i worked very hard to pass health care reform. very hard. after why we had to work to support and other approach. of a group of six. we worked four days, four months on a bipartisan basis to give health care reform past parker are watched it happen. those senators were in good
faith. they wanted to pass health care reform. they asked very good questions. senator snowe asked very good questions. senator grassley, we worked to give health care reform her third you know, what happened? i could feel that happening. one by one they started to drift away. they wanted to pass health care reform and act on a bipartisan basis but pressured, pressured from their political party not to do it. not to do it. not to do it. why? unfortunately they gave in to the pressure because their leadership wanted to make a political statement. one senator said make this obama of waterloo. they did not want to work with us on that side of the aisle because they wanted to make a public a call statement, but tax of the
bill. that is what they are trying to do. i asked mr. president, where is the courage? where is the courage? war republican senator will say stand up and work together? which also a stand-up and work together? this senator tried mightily to have bipartisan support. >> will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman from iowa i know he wanted to get health care reform passed by know that is the case. frankly he was pressured and pressured and he could not do it. he just could not do it. >> will you yield briefly? >> absolutely. >> the senator has already answered his own question. as a matter of fact senator grassley and senator enzi
met for hours and hours and wreaks upon weeks with my friend from 110 a. isn't good faith hoping to come up with a program that could get that aid the boat to support a usually get on matters. and said, eventually, it dawned on them that my friends on the other side of the i/o wanted to europeanize a health care system of the united states of america. >> guy reclaim my time. i think the senator for yielding. that is not what happened. i was constantly in the room and talk to those senators many times. what did happen, your leadership pressure them not to work together. there is no european-style part of that is the untruthful statements. on truthful.
>> i think the gentlemen for briefly yielding. >> it helps the doctor patient relationship, it is entirely untrue and falls. of the fact is the senators do not want to work with us. one of the biggest travesties, it is not a good-faith effort on that side of the aisle to come up with a constructive comprehensive alternative to the democratic health care reform program if there was a constructive, honest alternative to health care reform there is a good debate. to solve the health care problems of our country? that did not happen. none whatsoever.
the only one that came up a little bit was in the house after all the criticism, it was very, very small. and the cbo said there are they had in a coverage whatsoever and not really a comprehensive health care reform bill and none in the senate. i just want to the public to know we worked very hard to get a bipartisan bill and we started to work out with them with them politically they realized it would be better there would have a better chance in the 2010 elections too not work with us instead of attack and attack and attack and score political points of defeat over any on this coverage of health care reform. i now yield. >> thank you mr. president.
think my colleague. >> i yield my time from the senators of nebraska. >> thank you. this has been quite an enlightening experience here on the floor this past 30 or 40 minutes. it shows how emotionally charged this body has become over this issue and perhaps other issues as well. the challenge is we are entitled to our own opinions but not entitled to our own seven facts. of a buy to explain this so-called medicaid fix for the state of nebraska. it has been described as the omaha steaks fixed. i take issue and i only wish my colleague from nebraska had stayed on the floor to hear this. i take issue with one of the premier businesses of the
state of nebraska as a matter derision to outline something that is factually incorrect on the basis of how they present it. you continue to twist and turn and try to distort what happens, but it does not change the underlying facts. the underlying facts, this was pursued initially us the top 100 or opt out for all states. it was impossible to do that at the present time, so as a matter of six, there was the extension of the federal dollars from the year 2017 often come a well into the future so that every state could object to the matter of the unfunded mandates. as a governor and my colleague is a former
governor we've fought against federal unfunded mandates and as a senator i have also filed against unfunded and underfunded mandates and this was exactly dapper while we run not able to get in this legislation the actual opt out or opted for the state based decision, what we did get was in the future other states can come forward and say either the federal government pays for that in the future of our the state will have the opportunity not to continue that some we don't have the unfunded federal mandate. i am surprised. i am shocked. actually, i am not shocked. are you disappointed. that this is used and misused in this fashion natalee derisively against a great company in
nebraska, with nebraska stakes but also my colleague would participate in a colloquy that would use the name of that company in such a manner. i am surprised this colloquy went on without understanding the facts of what this so-called car route which is not a car route truly consisted of. there is no carve out. each state between now and 2017, a two-thirds of a decade will have the opportunity to come back and get the bill change. governors ask for relief against the continuing unfunded mandates time and time again. we have fought against them and this was one more opportunity presents matter fact the governor of nebraska of spots in this part of a rope real letter on november 16th and said the state of nebraska can
neither afford the unfunded mandate or uncontrolled spending of this magnitude. of nebraska and serve very concerned. it goes on to say a number of other things about the bill that makes the point* it is the unfunded mandate and wanted me to do something about it. so i sent him back on the same page, a letter that says think you. please be advised i propose the senate bill be modified to include the awp to it mechanism to have the state's avoid the issues which you have raised. nebraska prefers not to opt in and they would have the right. my colleagues knows this is the case. but they chose to ignore it and ignore the facts. on the 20th of december, i again wrote to the governor asking to share my concerns
of the unfunded mandate and pointed out within hours after the amendment was filed some of my colleagues from nebraska objected to these funds as a result by prepared to risk this provision be removed from the amendment in conference if it is the governor's desire. i got a letter back after december 21st talking about this as a special deal. it is not a special deal. in fact, it is the opportunity of the unfunded federal mandate for all of the states. let me repeat that. there is nothing special about it. we have drawn a line in the sand that says this is unacceptable for all states as well. i cannot believe this sort of situation would continue. there is no misunderstanding. it is just an opportunity to
mislead, distort and unfortunately confuse the american people who all the more and use a state of nebraska in the name of the company on political purposes for the other side of the iowa. i am not a deeply partisan person i rarely come to the floor to speak it when i do is to take exception with the misuse of information for partisan purposes. that is exactly what has been done with this situation. i'm prepared to fight for the state of nebraska and i hope my colleague is as well. of is the the governor is to bring my attention but i am not prepared to fight in a special deal for the state. i did not in their refuse to except that responsibility your suggestion from anyone outside of the aisle or
anyone else. and then in relation to abortion my colleagues know we introduce legislation that is comparable to the cpac legislation with barring the use of federal funds for abortions. we introduced has bipartisan it was nelson, casey and it did not pass. so i began the process to find other solutions that i thought equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear no federal funds would be used. apparently i did not say mother may i in the process of writing about language because others took issue even though they cannot constructively point* out how it does not prohibit the use of federal funds or keep them segregated they did not like the language.
if then the conference the stupak common nelson hatch casey language passes, i will be happy and so will congressmen stupak and also those who signed on to that legislation. it is unfortunate to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens in the body of the senate. it is difficult enough to have comedy and difficult enough to have cooperation and collegiality and when politics are put above productivity, this is what we get. am very disappointed and a somewhat disillusioned by the use of this message and technology and a purchase that would undermine the name of a company in nebraska hours while as the name of the state by associating it by some say
this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning program peterborough the assistant director of at quinnipiac university polling institute i am here to talk about the latest quinnipiac university poll. quinnipiac the largest university in connecticut does monthly polls on public affairs issues as its continuing commitment to research on public opinion in the united states. this poll conducted 15th through 20th the december survey of 1616 registered voters with a margin of error of 2.4% plus or minus. let me start. we will start with health care. although it appears senate democrats have the votes to pass health care on capitol
hill, there is not a great support for the play and outside the beltway. the quinnipiac plan found roughly 83/two margin voters disapprove rather than approve what they see as a plan coming through congress. and other key question they overwhelmingly by three /1 margin that public funds should not be used to pay for abortion under health care reform. interestingly, although the plan itself overall is not popular, two aspects of it which have been eliminated or likely elevated is the so-called public corruption and the idea of increasing medicare eligibility to those from age 55 through 65 find strong support.
on the question of who is best able to handle health care reform? president obama by 845% margin voters say president obama it is better able. but that is only a 5.gap. in july when quinnipiac asked the same question the president enjoyed a 20% advantage over the republican congress though public opinion has changed over that time. 73% of voters say they don't believe president obama will be able to keep his promise to sign a health care reform bill that does not increase the federal deficit. 56% of voters say they would prefer if the health care reform plan word to increase the federal deficit they would prefer to have no plan
at all parker will briefly highlight the findings of the economic questions. 52/42 margin voters say they would support the idiot of using $200 billion october from the bank bailout to be used for a second stimulus package aimed at creating jobs. overall, little has changed in public opinion about the economy since july on several questions cover virtually no change in terms of how people view the economy. generally, the voters are more optimistic that president obama economic plan will help the economy in the long run and has helped the economy and helped their personal financial situation or it will in the long run.
in the question of how they view president obama's ability or handling of the jobs issue with the negative 56 disapproved retain. i talked earlier about how there does not seem to be much change since july about the economy. in july we ask a question whether the economy was getting better or worse and july they said getting better july they said getting worse parker today 28% says getting better and getting worse. virtually unchanged. in other words, they don't think the economy is getting better, the american people. let's look at the question of who the american people think did a better job handling the economy?
they give president obama met a 9 percent edge, a 45 percent over 36%. in july he had a 22% margin, a 54/32. let me briefly explain the questions that we asked that i will be happy to take your questions. on how president obama handles the economy, a 51% say disapprove and 44% approve of his handling of the economy. on health care, 56% disapprove of president obama's handling, 36 percent approve. creating jobs coming 56% disapprove, a 37% approve. asked to rate the nation's economy coming o% say it is excellent. 7% it is good.
91% not so good or poor. when asked again getting better or worse or stay the same 20% say getting better, 28% worse and 40 percent stays the same. asked whether president obama's policy to help the economy are hurt the economy but some say it has hurt and 20% say it hurts. in the future 43% a president obama policies will help the economy and 29% say it will hurt. positive numbers but when we
asked about personal financial situation coming 15% say president of of its policies help their personal financial situation and 26% say it has hurt their personal situation. as we look to the future come up 31% say well hope of financial situation and 37% say it will hurt. we ask people whether anyone in their household has been laid off or lost a job in the last, a 28% of the population say somebody and household has lost a job or has been laid-off. on the question of the $200 billion left over from the bank eos, a 52% say it should go for stimulus where 42 percent want the money
used to reduce the federal deficit. moving on, health care. we asked the following question, from what you have heard or read you must approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system? fifty-three% mostly disapprove 36 mostly approve and among independence come a 50% mostly disapprove and 30% approve. mostly. what came closer to their fear? president and congress need to take on health care reform dow and s. they support the proposal. the president and congress need to take on health care reform with little support the proposal or whether they did not think it should be taking it on now.
31% went to action now is a poor proposal. 20% oppose the proposal and 36 percent do not want any action no. -- now. on the issue of the so-called public corruption which has passed the house not part of the senate bill, 30%, excuse me 56 percent approve, 38 percent disapprove. on the question of increasing medicare eligibility to those under 3564% approve, a 30 percent disapprove. on a question of allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill, a 72% oppose, a 23% support the idea. asking about president
obama's pledge, to keep the deficit neutral with health care reform, 73% say it will add to the deficit and they do not believe him and 18% thinks he can keep his promise and have health care reform without the increase of the deficit. 56% say if that is the case, they would prefer not to increase the deficit than have health care reform. a o be happy to take your questions. think you. >> with the presidential trust ratings house significant? >> obviously support for health care has deteriorated over the summer. but at this point*, the only votes that matter are the 535 members of congress. obviously over the summer of a protest against the health care reform and increased and it seemed to have some
effect but at this point* the only boats that matter the 5305 our the ones on capitol hill. >> and the description a real looking at larger sample sizes hoses compare? >> it is 1616 and it is somewhat smaller than the other national's most of those are in the 2500 range. one of the major reasons frankly is the snowstorm we had to shut down early our polling operations. quinnipiac university is in connecticut and there was a pretty heavy snowstorm this weekend and that did affect polling numbers. >> were there any questions based on how well the people you polled understood the issues? >> no. you cannot get to the
question of evaluating how well people understand the topic. especially with health care reform and it is a moving target clearly. board is one in the bill one day not there the next. it is very distant polling data is what we ask them they question the way we did. we asked whether on based on where you have read or heard about under consideration and that is a question we have passed before. this way we could get a trend on what people think is going on through their eyes and the only thing polling can do. cannot say with this guy is talking about so we will not count his appended because other people know what turin not, that is the universe rear interested in finding out about. >> [inaudible] >> obviously as 2010 dawns
over the 10 months between january and november elections, quinnipiac polls are aimed at trying to find out what people think of the pathway of issues that will play out in the 2010 election. the state police florida ohio pennsylvania and new jersey those are the key senate races. florida, and primaries between governor chris has gotten a great deal of attention and our inspector has been a senator 29 years as a republican and now a democrat that is a high-profile race. chris dodd in congress 30 years and he has a tough reelection race based on their early polling that shows him behind. in new york there's a new
senator who was not well known and she faces a potential challenge. ohio. you have a governor whose job approval rating rating, governor strickland is only above 40 percent so he obviously has problems, potential problems and the open senate seat so that will be heavily watched contest. nationally in terms of the quinnipiac national polls we will clearly monitor the views. anything else? thank you very much.
>> i think we are all here. let's get started. good morning. it is early. good morning and. [laughter] my name is hillary show then i am the director of the naacp washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy policy for the it naacp. we're glad you're here as we focus on the crucial civil-rights issues of the difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing laws and how those lines have become so obvious and prevalent and undercutting of the trust and integrity of the criminal justice community needs to be successful to carry out their responsibilities and our community. so we're on the senate side to talk about legislation to
begin addressing those disparities and with us is an esteemed a group of experts from different segments. what of the things that is great from the particular group of individuals rehab as some bold this a a very well how to for you will see their perspective. people that lead to the far left, right, democrats, repu blicans cover religious activists and those that are agnostic but the bottom line is that they all agree on one issue that there is a big problem in america when you have the racial disparities that we see with the criminal-justice system as a focus on powder cocaine and crack cocaine sentencing laws. want to tell you about the great people we have assembled. we will bring them up one by one. first we will hear from chris burns. serving as an attorney
advisory to the staff director of the u.s. commission on civil rights a bipartisan independent agency of the federal government charged with investigating, reporting recommending civil-rights issues. he has sought to drive several high-profile reports come a member of the fellow society and draft a federal society white paper. proposals to eliminate sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenses. chris burns. ladies and gentlemen,. [applause] and then you will hear from lisa rich director of legislative public affairs from the united states sentencing commission. also served director of legislative affairs at a national law firm and worked on several congressional investigations as well as three independent counsel investigations. author of a number of articles on criminal procedure and a sentencing and the ad showed professor
at george washington university. ladies and gentlemen, lisa rich. [applause] pat nolan vice president of prison fellowship zeroth largest our reach organization to prisoners, a former prisoners and families. believes justice fellowship program republican leader of the california state assembly before being convicted of accepting a campaign contribution during the fbi sting and spent 29 months in federal custody and saga of federal prison system from a different perspective. he completed his appointment to the national rate commission and at curbing prison rape. pat nolan ladies and gentlemen,. [applause] >> newble then hear from paul but larry former prosecutor law professor and the author of let's get a free. while at the doj served as a special assistant u.s. attorney prosecuting drug cases and now teaches in the
area of criminal-justice come a civil-rights and jurisprudence. paul baller. [applause] lawrence garrett send the final guest was released earlier this year as a result of the sentencing guideline changes after serving more than 10 years of a 15 year sentence his twin brother convicted at the same time is still incarcerated. in 1988 convicted of conspiracy to distribute carter and crack cocaine a few months after graduating from howard university parker he currently resides in washington d.c. and has received his real estate license and is willing to move his life for word. ladies and gentlemen,, lawrence caris then it. [applause] the. we will hear from five minutes from each of our speakers then have time for questions and answers part of the first speaker, chris
burns. >> thank you so much mr. moderator. good morning. the are currently serve as attorney advisory to the u.s. commission of civil-rights i appear in my personal capacity to present a recent paper proposals to eliminate sentencing disparities between carter and crack cocaine. i wrote this for the federalist society. i cannot speak on their behalf be there. but the purpose of the project is to monitor and analyze a definitive proposals coming from the new administration with the eye toward the constitutional and legal obligations. the city hopes -- society hopes this will continue to foster discussion. the society nor my paper takes the position on the sentencing disparities but my paper should serve as a straightforward summary of the policy arguments
involved. where does the sentencing disparity come from? the anti-drug abuse act 1986 is a two day minimum mandatory offense trafficking 5 grams of cocaine 500 grams of powder coat came and day minimum mandatory sentence 10 years for 50 grams of 5,000 grams of say drug dealer convicted of stealing of crack is the same as 100 times more powder cocaine. after enactment, the sentencing commission applied the quantity reassure in the sentence saying guidelines established for federal courts. why did congress singled out crack? it targeted it a higher than carter cocaine based on assumptions that crack was uniquely addictive and more
associated with serious and violent crime and more physically harmful to users especially infants exposed prenatally and young people were especially prone to use and distribute crack and finally its potency, low-cost panties and administration leading to a widespread use. some argue the level of violent crime has stabilized or declined since 1986. 120002 report found more recent data indicated that less traffic finance is measured by weapon user bodily injury was less. some well see a decrease in violence others credit the tough sentencing of the anti-drug abuse act to get dealers off the streets for others ever geared crack cocaine use is still look dat with a violent use
because those 10 to be involved with gang members but department of justice argued crack members are less likely to use the same person -- 10 that it was elevated and agriculture risk for the sentencing commission found the rate of what been involvement increased 27% for powder cocaine and 40 2% for crack cocaine 2000 through 2005. in 2002 the department cited a study looking at crack and process used in. it pointed to a 1998 the identifies crack as the drug most closely linked with homicide rates and also crack use and prostitution. more specifically the opponents argue the statutes distinction categorically presumes violent contact and
double counts the charge conduct. according to these critics federal criminal law authority contains penalties to address the violent conduct and the circumstances of the case should govern the applicability. the policy argued as a racially discriminatory impact according to the sentencing commission report approximately 85% of those convicted of crack offenses were african-american. the commission report found 80 percent of crack cocaine offenders were african-american but the hispanics accounted 55% in the same year. the racial disparity is a concern to some argue that it fosters disrespect and lack of confidence in a criminal justice system that it has an unwarranted based on race and some think that
it encourages jurors to disregard the laws and facts and leaves the public to question the motives of government officials because of the perceived unfairness. and others think it may stem from the possibility statistically african americans may use or sell crack more than whites that a disproportionately help african-american communities victimized by crack distribution argue under any decrease in the penalties that minorities aren't comprising of those looking for self-destructive habits without government. the sentencing commission recommended congress increased the threshold qualities more closely on major drug traffickers. would've congress would raise the threshold? the report estimated going 1/1 quantity ratio would decrease the average
sentence at 121 months and reduce by 50. some point* out the analysis fails to take into account any potential crime. the sentencing commission has promulgating the ameliorating amendment to its own sentencing guidelines to alleviate some penalties for offenses. while the all over the addressee issues several cases found their way to the supreme court to impact the applicability of the sentencing guidelines. for example, the united states vs. broker the supreme court rendered the guidelines and the court held that the anti-drug abuse act did not require the 100 quantity ratio throughout the guidelines and may conclude it is greater than necessary. and the court clarified its holding to have the